Talk:Thomas DiLorenzo

This article makes the uncited claim that DiLorenzo is an anarchist. He has refered to himself in interview as "Jeffersonian" which seems to imply support for a minimal state. Any evidence to the contrary?Atripodi 05:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

In "How I Became a Libertarian", DiLorenzo clearly cites Rothbard as one of his chief influences, although I am not sure that will suffice as a citation for the anarcho-capitalist claim. Now in an article on antitrust regulation, DiLorenzo says, "Two events during the third week of May proved once again that antitrust regulation is nothing but a scheme to divert the public's attention away from the real monopoly menace in society: the state." That sounds pretty A-C to me (although some might argue otherwise) since a major complaint of anarcho-capitalists is that statism implies a coercive monopoly over the provision of certain public goods. In discussing Public Choice theory, DiLorenzo states that

"...public choicers have argued that many governments are preferable to fewer governments. This is just piling fallacy on top of fallacy. No, competition is not contingent on the number of firms; government is not a firm; and more governments, which usually means more levels of government, are not necessarily preferable to fewer."

Again, in the context, it seems to be indicative of DiLorenzo's position. Without bringing in original research which clearly wouldn't be appropriate, I can't really argue for the inclusion any better. Now, for the sake of full disclosure, I asked Dr. DiLorenzo about this when he was at the Mises Institute for the Mises University seminar in August. I asked him if he was an anarchist and if there were any sources that said so. He didn't directly answer the former, and indicated in the negative with regards to the latter. DickClarkMises 00:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, it might just be a matter of semantics, but if he doesn't call himself an anarchist I don't think we should. I'm going to take delete that sentence until we have better evidence. I hope this doesn't bother anyone. Atripodi 07:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I was doubtful of the claim, so I put the ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} on there. I have read some of his writings and heard him speak, but I didn't remember anything that struck me as particularly a-c. I met and talked to him since posting the ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} label, but I didn't say anything about it. Yes, an a-c would have to oppose anti-trust laws, but not all anti-trust opponents have to be a-c. He isn't a complete supporter of Jefferson, but I think his critisism isn't that Jefferson was ever vice president or president, he is opposed to some of the things Jefferson did while president, and Jefferson didn't think too highly of his own presidency. I don't think Jefferson could ever be considered a-c. Maybe DiLorenzo isn't quite sure himself. --Kalmia 06:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Rogue9 - you have attempted to add and revert to the sentence "claiming that the South was right to secede to protect slavery" twice now. This violates WP:NPOV as it espouses an opinion about DiLorenzo's view of the south's secession, suggesting the absurd notion that he favors slavery. In fact, if you open that article you will find that DiLorenzo essentially endorses the opinion on secession of well known abolitionist Lysander Spooner, indicating that contrary to your edit, DiLorenzo does NOT believe protecting slavery was right. You are certainly entitled to your belief as to slavery's role in secession, but please do not use Wikipedia as a platform to make cheap shot misrepresentations of DiLorenzo's position on slavery. Rangerdude 01:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Lysander Spooner, in refusing to accept the measures that the South made necessary to effect the abolition of slavery, showed that he was no abolitionist. Using his reputation as a shield on the matter is utterly pointless against the well-informed; he was manifestly willing to talk, but unwilling to act. Rogue 9 (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Right now the article "Compensated emancipation" is in "see also". However there's no mention of DiLorezno there, and no explanation of the connection here. If anyone is sufficiently familiar with his material we should put it into context. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

In his defense of the right to secession, TD is often asked to explain how slavery could have been abolished without the war. He points to the practice of compensated emancipation that every other civilized nation went through in the gerneration before the American catastrophe. This is one of the most controversial things he speaks and writes about. So, if the article ever gets fleshed-out further, this should definately remain.CsCran 23:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dilorenzo's writings are very interesting, because they seem to coach Southern Separatism as justified against the original reasons for the American Civil War to be other than a war to end slavery within its broad purpose. Southern Separatism is coached here as a libertarian stand for State Rights to remove or reduce the role of the Federal Government and diminish the role of the US Supreme Court's oversight of State laws contrary to the US Constitution and its Amendments.

Consider Thomas DiLorenzo's membership of the League of the South, which itself comes from a secessionist point of view and may affect DiLorenzo's ability to make an objective assessment of Abraham Lincoln's intentions and purposes as to the reasons for the American Civil War. This is evident partisanship which could be seen as impinging on scholastic credibility of his research of Abraham Lincoln as a subject matter.

A similar Libertarian position is taken by the theocratic Austrian School theorist Gary North,whose literature is also amply circulated among Lew Rockwell's libertarian circles, however a Theocratic undercurrent is revealed underneath when closely examining the argument for a smaller non-interventionist role of the Federal Government and its anti-tax protest. People are led wonder what does Ludwig Von Misses's economic Neo-Liberalism have to do with Southern Secession? The answer is Framing (social sciences) to repackage Secessionfor general consumption by the American Public.

--220.239.179.128 (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Article talk pages exist to discuss improvements to articles, not to discuss the subjects of those articles. Do you have sufficient sources that cover thesetopics to include this material in the article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Somewhat relevant, but Lysander Spooner is the sole name mentioned on his view of the matter. He mentions him, but is he really that significant in his thinking? He is mentioned as a defense of many or most libertarian critics of Lincoln. So that indicates he's a major influence on the matter, but I'm uncertain that's true. Is he so major or is he just mentioned to show they're pro-Confederate without being pro-slavery? And is there even an NPOV way to touch that subject?--T. Anthony (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

DiLorenzo is not now and has never been pro-confederacy. DiLorenzo and other Mises scholars have always opposed the Confederacy (since it is a state and they are anarchists). In fact, Mark Thornton wrote a whole book about the wrongheadedness of the Confederacy's economic policies, entitled Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation. Support for secession does not equal a wholecloth endorsement of a particular group of secessionists. The Spooner citation is relevant because Spooner was an abolitionist anarchist who favored secession. DickClarkMises (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

DiLorenzo is now and has always been pro-Confederacy and pro-slavery. There is no distinction whatsoever between these two topics and the secessions of 1860-61. Rogue 9 (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is false, and your repeating it here doesn't make it less so. DiLorenzo opposes centralized government, argues for the legitimacy of all secession, and has written on the Spooner objection to the Civil War:

Spooner strongly believed that, had the case been publicly made that slavery was unconstitutional, then world opinion would have pressured honorable southern leaders like Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee to work towards doing what the British, Spanish, Dutch, French, and other slave-owning societies had done in the nineteenth century, and end the institution peacefully. In his own words, from the letter to Sumner:

Had all those men at the North, who believed these ideas [i.e., the unconstitutionality of slavery] to be true, promulgated them, as was their plain and obvious duty to do, it is reasonable to suppose that we should long since have had freedom, without shedding one drop of blood . . . . The South could, consistently with honor, and probably would, long before this time, and without a conflict, have surrendered their slavery to the demand of the constitution . . . and to the moral sentiment of the world. . . . You, and others like you have done more, according to your abilities, to prevent the peaceful abolition of slavery, than any other men in the nation . . .

To deny this and say that DiLorenzo was pro-chattel slavery is just blatant, baseless POV-pushing and is a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. Please stop making these obviously false assertions. You know that they are incorrect. DickClarkMises (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, I do not know they are incorrect, because they are no such thing. The action and the motivation for the action are inseparable; to support the secession of the southern states is to support the reasons for which they seceded. That is to say, it is to support this.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

And this.

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.

And even this.

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it-when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

There is no escaping this fact: The entire reason for the Confederacy's break from the Union was the issue of slavery, specifically the Deep South's desire to maintain, protect, and expand the practice. General Beauregard did not exhort his troops with appeals to defend their homeland and their rights; no, he stirred them to action by accusing the Union army of being an "abolition host" come to free the slaves. Professor DiLorenzo goes to extraordinary lengths to defend this action; it may go unsaid, but he quite obviously supports it. Rogue 9 (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I appreciate your drawing out your reasoning here, because it makes it very clear that you are engaging in a version of original research known as "synthesis." Please see WP:SYN. Especially where it says:

Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.

This is what you are doing, and it would be forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia. Regardless of the merit of your synthesis (which I do not concede), it cannot be the basis for a controversial assertion. It especially cannot be the basis of a controversial assertion in a biography of a living person. DickClarkMises (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Bah. I didn't synthesize a thing; a single one of those would have done what I needed it to. Citing multiple sources for the same thing is not synthesis. Unless you intend to dispute the fact that he's a secessionist (and one completely unable to remain objective on the subject; his passions are obvious in every scholarly work he's ever produced on the matter, and he even drags it into ones that have nothing to do with the Civil War) who specifically supports the 1860-61 secessions of the southern states, then he is supporting the above ideas. The quoted passages are explicitly explanations by the governments involved for their actions in seceding from the Union. To say that he supports their secession while not supporting the entire reason for their secession is nonsensical on its face. It might make some sort of sense if there was a benefit arising from the action (it's understandable to like a beneficial action even if done for wrong reasons), but the secession simply brought destruction, death, and suffering, all to defend an institution that visited those same things upon an entire class of human beings while reducing them to the status of draft animals. It's a position that flatly contradicts libertarian and classical liberal principles to their very cores. Rogue 9 (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

You are citing sources that pre-date DiLorenzo by a century or so. These are not reliable sources for controversial claims about a living person who came to be alive one hundred years later. I disagree with your conclusions, but that isn't relevant here. What is relevant here is what is in conformity with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I am confident that the BLP noticeboard folks will agree with my interpretation of WP:SYN and the urgency here due to WP:BLP. DickClarkMises (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

If DiLorenzo has written that he supports slavery we can report that. If noteworthy critics say that he's supported slavery we can report that. But if we think that he supports slavery due to his statements on other topics then we cannot report that. Supporting secession as an abstract legal instrument is not the same as supporting chattel slavery. While the cause of the Southern secession was neitrly wrapped-up in slavery, it could easily have been some other issue. Countries divide up along dynastic, religious, ethnic, or even political lines all of the time. Supporting their right to do so isn't the same as supporting the individual policies of the various divisions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

This page doesn't have a single citation to any source other than to organizations with whom he's closely affiliated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binarybits (talk • contribs) 22:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Except, of course, to at least one organization with which he has had an ongoing disagreement (Claremont Inst.). DickClarkMises (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The subject of this article is supported by only three citations, one of which is dead, and another which points to a blog. Further, notability of academics prescribes a number of criteria for notability, none of which DiLorenzo seems to satisfy. Significant impact in his field? Doesnt seem like it. Prestigious award or important position? Nope. Editor of important journal? No. Further, the links offered all trace back to the Mises institute, or weblogs, not a good sign of notability. Bonewah (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Coverage of this topic is wide, independent and meaningful. If you truly think this topic is not notable, you might want to take this to articles for deletion. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

This article has a long history going back to September 2004 (almost 5 years), with contributions by many and sundry editors and has been extensively vetted and categorized. Di Lorenzo is a published (Random House) author who has been covered in many independent publications. This topic easily meets WP:N. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've worked on this article almost since its inception and, while I disagree with the subject's views, I acknowledge his notability. He has written several books and articles that are significant in their fields. Unfortunately, Google Scholar is no help in establishing how frequently he's cited because of other scholars with similar names. But there are plenty of citations to his works. {Notability} is better used for new articles. If there's a serious question about the notability of the subject then an AFD would be more appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  22:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Notability requires verifiable evidence, the mere fact that a number of editors have worked on it does not establish notability. Perhaps {importance} would be a better tag, but this is the first ive heard that {notability} is for new articles. As for an AFD, i thought it would be better if editors here were given a chance to address my concerns before doing and AfD. Bonewah (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please feel free to take this to WP:AFD. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just like that? You dont want to even try and work these issues out? Bonewah (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article has its lacks, but topic notability is not one of them, the article text establishes this. If you truly think this topic is not notable, much wider input can be had at AfD and there is nothing untowards about bringing this up there in good faith. Discussions at AfD often wind up helping article content, even if the outcome is a keep. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, Im not going to do an AfD until other editors have had a chance to work out the issues here. On that note, would you mind if I put the {notability} or {importance} tag back on? Bonewah (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

You have no consensus to place those tags. This article has been up for almost 5 years, has a deep contrib history, the subject is a widely published and cited author. Please wait for further input here (from other editors) or take it to AfD. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think that is contrary to the rules of tagging. Ive stated my reasons for wanting to tag this article and I dont believe you have either refuted my arguments or offered any real proof of the subject's notability, google hits not withstanding. Having said that, I wont re-add them, even though i dont believe consensus is necessary to add a tag.Bonewah (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

• I'm not sure I agree with Gwen Gale's view on the need for a consensus to add a tag, but the tag is just an alert that an editor sees a problem. Let's focus on that problem rather than the tag issue. Basically, Bonewah appears to be saying that the article doesn't establish the subject's notability sufficiently because too many of the sources come from the same place. So let's find more sources, and if we can't then let's take this to AfD. Does anyone disagree with that approach?   Will Beback  talk  20:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Since the summer of 2009, it appears that a number of citations have been added to support factual assertions on this page, and Dr. DiLorenzo has continued to publish and lecture well beyond his obligations as a professor of economics at Loyola University Maryland. If he is not considered by his professional peers to be sufficiently "safe" to be made the "Editor of [an] important journal" or smarmed with awards, this is not unexpected in the case of a scholar who has focused upon a revisionist approach to subjects such as the Lincoln myth and the false notion that the policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt had resulted in anything other than a worsening and prolongation of the Great Depression. After all, a great many tenured professors of history and political economics have made the extension and expansion of these fallacies into their career rice bowls.
  The "Notability" tag should be immediately removed from this article.
  — Tucci78 (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I can't believe there is no section about how controversial this guy is, and that this article treats him like a straight-up academic. He's a straight up neo-confederate successionist. [1] [2] [3] [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.110.158 (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

That is a bizarre statement. Since when is someone not an academic if his work is controversial? He's as academic as any other economist or historian. All you have to do is attend or watch his Youtube lectues or read his articles on LvMI and Lew Rockewell's site. He's researching an area that has been neglected for centuries. Isn't Chmosky's or Krugman's work controversial? Or is it only that someone who is a free-marketeer gets to be controversial? Advocating for the right of secession is only following the Founding Fathers. Sure a "criticism" section may be appropriate, but not because he advocates secession, but because his positions or works aren't accepted by mainstream academics (State apologists). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.33.220 (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

He's "controversial" because he blatantly makes stuff up and attempts to connect unrelated subjects to his own personal hobbyhorse of glorifying the Confederate rebellion. He advocates insupportable positions from which he draws blatantly false conclusions (on more than Civil War history, I might add), and depends for his notability on fanning ideology and engaging in revisionism (which he follows by accusing serious researchers of being revisionist) rather than conducting unbiased scholarly research, to the point where in the academy he is ignored more often than time is wasted on criticizing him. Rogue 9 (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

A whole section with 2 full paragraphs about the League of the South "Involvement"? What, he really was a member or something – or is this Heidi Beirich's opinion? DiLorenzo has written about a lot of stuff, and because the fact that somebody may have (or did) publish something without his permission makes the material contentious. Perhaps some of this stuff is appropriate for this BLP, but I think a subsection or perhaps a footnote is the best course of action. – S. Rich (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)18:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

As a matter of fact, that incident (including the Congressional committee bit) was just about the most notable moment in DiLorenzo's career to date. I suggest you read up on him and his work. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:ISNOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person. Isn't that a policy or something? User:Carolmooredc  talk 05:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Given the absurd photo I deleted of the representative who criticized him in congress that I removed, is it time for WP:BLPN?? By the way, I know I've read various DiLorenzo denials of some of these charges, so they should be included also. User:Carolmooredc  talk 18:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Not time for a BLPN. So far there does not seem to be much dispute about the Undue nature of the section. I suggest we wait for Steeletrap to weigh in as she did a bit of editing on the section. – S. Rich (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

You are correct. When people start taking out denials and well sourced material it will be. Frankly, besides photo, I haven't studied it enough to decide what easily can be taken out now as WP:Undue that BLPN would agree with as well, should editors revert it vs. BLP. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I made a first attempt to correct the POV/Undue issues per WP:BLP. Hey, SPLC is NOT an academic source for criticism of a scholars book. And after all the lectures we've had about finding such sources!!

I'm quite sure DiLorenzo said quite a bit more in self-defense which needs to be in there. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm fine with expanding the defense. But being condemned by a U.S. Representative, after a testimony before the House of Representatives, is the focal point of "Coach" Di's (I say "Coach" because he appears to be wearing a whistle in his pic) career. This and the League of the South criticism are the source of his RS mentions. I can't find anything else online that wasn't written by personal friends/co-workers/employers/fellow travelers. Steeletrap (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Congresspeople are not gods (I say "gods" because some think they are) and Lorenzo says quite a bit more about Clay's comments that are worth mentioning. Plus I think we need to separate out the 2004 and 2009 SPLC attacks and see what responses he had. I'm wondering if SPLC is confusing some other conferences he was part of with League of the South and if there isn't proof of their claims, that advocacy stuff must go. Just because your searches don't bring up anything, doesn't mean others won't - and haven't dozens of times before - does it? For starters, I'm sure there's NPOV stuff of interest in the external links section which I haven't even read yet. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

In an effort to clean up the section, I removed some of Beirich's commentary. I see that "Beirich notes that the League advocates for a society dominated by whites, describes slavery as "God ordained", and defends segregation as necessary to maintain the "racial integrity" of blacks and whites." has been reinserted. This material is off-topic from the BLP in that it injects an opinion about the entity and not about DiLorenzo. – S. Rich (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Missed that. Again, all BLP violation related. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the Lacy Clay material. Analysis: Would it be appropriate for this material, especially DiLorenzo's retort, to be included in Clay's article? – S. Rich (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

My rhetorical question remains unanswered. How might the paragraph mentioning Lacy Clay be appropriate for Clay's article? If not appropriate there, I submit it is not appropriate here. Without an answer, restoring the material is improper. – S. Rich (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please specify a policy that supports your theory. MilesMoney (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

WP:IMPARTIAL says "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes." If there is a "dispute" between DiLorenzo & Clay that is significant, it would have more coverage than the single Baltimore Sun article. But this is an isolated incident where one representative in one subcommittee hearing made a few remarks. So what? If you watch CSPAN at all, you'll see that most questions are actually speeches made for the folks back home. With this in mind, including Clay's remarks and DiLorenzo's response really isn't a dispute worth encyclopedic coverage. If you really think the "dispute" is worthwhile, you might paste it into Clay's article. I would expect (and hope) that it be removed immediately as a WP:POINTy disruption. I ask the question with the following wisdom in mind: If this isolated incident isn't good for the goose, it isn't good for the gander. It is unencyclopedic material, and the added commentary surrounding it makes it even worse. – S. Rich (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your statement does not reflect WP policy. Furthermore, your assertion as to the reflexivity of importance -- in other words that the truth of "A is important for B" implies the converse, "B is important for A" -- is logically and in every practical sense false. I'm quite surprised and disappointed to see it stated by an experienced WP editor. SPECIFICO talk 04:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

You're right; he didn't answer the question and he's basically making up policy as he goes along. None of this amounts to an argument for excluding this source. MilesMoney (talk) 04:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

With this diff which I reverted, adding "southern nationalist" I can see the POV warrior mentality influencing editing and resulting in violations of WP:BLP. Thus I have moved what obviously is not a scholarly article out of that section; it looks like a vandalistic joke edit, frankly, given the editor's constant discussion of the need for more scholarly refs. And I replaced neoconfederate which is WP:OR with southern nationalist, which is how Wiki article describes it; DiLorenzo doesn't use the word either. When working in WP:BLP one must be conservative. I really must get ready for guests, so pardon me if I don't deal with this any more today. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's really hard to violate WP:BLP while fairly summarizing reliable sources, so that's not really the issue here. Rather, there seems to be a concerted effort to grossly violate WP:NPOV by incorrectly claiming WP:BLP violations as justification for censorship. We cannot remove notable criticism, particularly from an article that consists primarily of sources that are openly biased in favor of DiLorenzo. As a BRD step, I'm going to revert back one version and see if a legitimate basis for removing this criticism exists. I have my doubts.

Aside from content, I must say that the behavior of Rich and Carol has been highly aggressive and not at all civil. They seem to be acting as if well-sourced criticism of the subject of this article was somehow a personal attack upon them. This is not at all productive. MilesMoney (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

The template reads: This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.' SPLC is an advocacy group with an axe to grind, so even though it is often used, when doubts are expressed about facts it throws out (which I will have time to check out today) or about it's propriety for judging scholarship in a scholarship section, these are serious BLP matters. The fact that editors who scream for highest academic standards if a source praises the BLPs they dislike, while using advocacy groups to criticize academic scholarship certainly shows a level of POV worth mentioning under Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors. So please do not attribute personal motives when policy motives have been repeatedly mentioned to you. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

At this diff SPECIFICO removes the italiced section from this sentence with this ref:

In the same vein, DiLorenzo has spoken out in favor of the secession of the Confederate States of America, defending the right of these states to secede in a view similar to that of abolitionist Lysander Spooner.REF: "An Abolitionist Defends the South," LewRockwell.com October 20, 2004]

The edit summary reads:

We need an independent RS reference in order to state that mainstream views Prof. DiLorenzo's theories to parallel Spooner's.

• If a DiLorenzo primary source article is good enough to say DiLorenzo has spoken out in favor of secession of CSA, it's good enough to say DiLorenzo talks about Spooner's views, especially since most of the article details Spooner's views as the only abolitionist to support CSA secession, with several references mentioned.
• Obviously it would be helpful to get a secondary source that has brought up both topics.
• Lorenzo also discusses Spooner in this book.

It is absurd to pillory the guy for paragraph after paragraph and not discuss his views. User:Carolmooredc  talk 18:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sentences currently in the article (this version) are in italics followed by an analysis of the BLP problems in the sentences. Tags will be put on as necessary if issues are not resolved soon and any necessary updated listing mentioned at WP:BLPN:

• DiLorenzo's employer, the Ludwig von Mises Institute

• WP:OR unless ref'd since it is highly unlike LVMI is paying research fellows

• In 2002, DiLorenzo debated Harry V. Jaffa on the merits of Abraham Lincoln's statesmanship before and during the civil war. etc.Ref

• Editors pick out the most insulting sounding quote rather than giving an NPOV account of the articles' main point which is: "Mr. DiLorenzo rightly laments the rise of the administrative-welfare state that has increasingly displaced free government in America. But he wrongly asserts that Lincoln is the cause. American government today, which largely operates outside the scope of and with little regard for the Constitution, rests not upon the principles of Lincoln, but a rejection of those principles."

• DiLorenzo has written in defense of the neo-Confederate League of the South, supporting the organization's views on economic and social issues and characterizing it as an organization that "advocates peace and prosperity in the tradition of a George Washington or a Thomas Jefferson". Ref

• Since this is really a LoS criticism issue, per the below, need to move it down to that section
• Is writing in LewRockwell.com automatically scholarship now? Let's identify he wrote it there for sure.
• "Neoconfederate" is the SPLC's criticism and must be noted by such, if used at all
• We need a better exposition of what DiLorenzo says there since advocacy group SPLC is later used to characterize the group in extremely negative fashion and this seems an attempt at guilt by association vs. DiLorenzo.

• The League of the South Institute has listed DiLorenzo as an "affiliated scholar."Ref

• Where ever this is listed it immediately should be followed by his pointing out they just listed him as that after he did one event and it is not evidence of some long-term relationship

• The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) "Hatewatch" blog, by Heidi Beirich, characterized DiLorenzo as a "longtime activist" in the League of the South, which she described as a "hate group"; Beirich notes that the League advocates for a society dominated by whites, describes slavery as "God ordained", and defends segregation as necessary to maintain the "racial integrity" of blacks and whites.SPLC ref

• Heidi Beirich is an employee of SPLC so why would that not be mentioned?
• "Longtime activist" is a mere summary of allegations which DiLorenzo denies, so WP:Undue to put it in
• This highly negative advocacy group description of League of the South does not reflect the whole article but the SPLC description in it and obviously is a guilt by association smear tactic against BLP to defame DiLorenzo

• Beirich writes that DiLorenzo's gave lectures to the 2002 League of the South Conference and to its 2002 "Southern Heritage" conference and had written articles for other "Neo-Confederate outfits"

• Make it clear this is just an allegation made without proof by placing in sentence clearly followed by his denials.
• Anything DiLorenzo denied by phone to a reporter also should be mentioned, not just this LewRockwell.com article denial.
• However, the 2009 Tennesse event mentioned in SPLC 2011 source currently used should be mentioned plus BaltSun interview response that DiLorenzo "countered that he was invited to the event by a minister who mentioned no connection to the league and it was cancelled." (DiLorenzo also says "And even if I did speak at an event like that, so what?" and "I give speeches about Civil War economics to all kinds of people." but his meaning of "events like that" is not a clear statement that he means ones "connected to the league" so should not be used as "proof" of anything.

• and also for the Journal of Historical Review, a "Holocaust denial publication" JHR published his article, which advocated the flying of the Confederate flag on the South Carolina Court House, without his consent.

• Should make clear this is yet another SPLC allegation DiLorenzo denies.

Finally, the DeLorenzo's criticism of SPLC should be in this article, per BaltSun which establishes notability of his criticism, i.e.:

DiLorenzo also attacked the Southern Poverty Law Center in his Web post about Clay's testimony. "Their modus operandi is to label any individual or group that effectively criticizes their far-left, socialistic agenda as a 'hater,'" he wrote. "Apparently, associating with anyone South of the Mason-Dixon line in any way qualifies one as a 'hater' and potential KKK recruit in the warped minds of the hateful and libelous SPLC."

Hopefully this exposition of the BLP problems with this article will enlighten other editors and make it easier to make the article WP:BLP compliant when I rewrite the section. Please do not interrupt text with any responses but only respond below. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, experienced WP editors have all too often seen "BLP violation" cited as a pretext to whitewash material which, for whatever reason, they do not wish to be published here. The fact is that there's nothing in Prof. DiLorenzo's life and work which should lead anyone to suppress or minimize his views. Prof. DiLorenzo is admirably clear about his views and expresses them articulately and openly. I'm at a loss to see why any of his scholarly or popular writings or statements would be viewed as shameful or contentious. Remember, it's not our job to judge any such views, only to represent accurately what independent RS have to say about them. SPECIFICO talk 19:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Suggestion Please post your proposed edits here on the talk page, together with the references and policy-based reasons for your proposed new language. That will facilitate an orderly discussion and resolution of your concerns. Please do not continue with reversions of sourced text prior to consensus. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 19:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Wikipedia:BLP#Balance reads:

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content.

The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

This policy basically says given my listing of problems all that material should be removed until the material is discussed and corrected.

• I obviously do intend to rewrite it in an NPOV way but that will take a bit of research and a couple days. Therefore, given your refusal to
• You have not bother to address even one problem except with a personal attack of "white wash". And I know you will again revert the material if I delete per WP:BLP. This obviously has become a BLPN matter. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Carolmooredc -- You already acknowledged on your talk page that you had 5 reverts in 24 hours yesterday. Believe it or not, the policy does not say "Carolmooredc..." Please slow your pace. Wait until your list of concerns can be digested and discussed by other editors here. Most of us have other demands on our time and are not on WP 24/7. Please be patient and await the comments of the editors who follow this page. You may also wish to post notice of this discussion on the economics and history project pages to solicit broader participation. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

This problem of really questionable material being loaded into BLPs by Steeletrap, supported by SPECIFICO, has been going on for six months (MilesMoney having joined in more recently). It's been 3 days in this particular article. It led to Austrian economics sanctions on the articles. I don't think it's going to get any better given the strong negative views of a number of individuals, living and dead, expressed repeatedly by SPECIFICO and Steeletrap. I haven't seen much improvement in the month since the sanctions. I can't spend my whole life arguing about why policies should be enforced with people who keep poo pooing my concerns. Why have strict BLP policies if they are not enforced.

Actually, I did 3 reverts, all related to these BLP violations. Full details here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Note: tweaks to the article in last 24 hours have solved some of the issues above. However, again partisans are using advocacy groups hyping up an issue to dominate and article, while doing no real research to make a balanced article. I'm going to do some research today and rewrite tomorrow. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Temporary_removal_of_BLP_violating_material. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

As I wrote at WP:BLPN: I find the following disturbing. At this diff, you removed Lorenzo's understanding of why he was listed on League of South website - because he had done a few previously mentioned lectures 13 years before. Your edit summary reads: (Remove BLP violation. This asserts that League of South does not update their website and posts misinformation, smearing League of South for alleged dishonesty and/or incoompetence.) To me this expresses contempt for the whole concept of BLP. DiLorenzo's understanding regarding the listing belongs in the article, in one way or another, and just leaving the implication he is a liar recently associated with it is extremely problematic. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Corrected at this diff with more info, better order and reported at BLPN. Also reported both SPECIFICO and Steeletrap's evidences of contempt for BLPs and BLP policy. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

This edit removes the criticism by Uhlmann and Krannawitter, apparently on the basis of the fact that it's critical. WP:NPOV not only allows but requires criticism. MilesMoney (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Not quite accurate. The edit summary referred to balance, which is my main concern. The fact that the critics are Claremont scholars is secondary, and added with the hopes that editors will reflect on what we often see in these discussions: the ad hominem rationale that because scholars are affiliated with the same organization does not mean that they are incorrect. Per WP Policy, we must provide WP:BALANCE, not just adverse critical comments. – S. Rich (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Put in an intelligent criticism and not an ad hominem one and it might be relevant. The larger problem which I'll correct tomorrow, after do more research in general, is that his two most notable books do need their own section with both pro and con commentary and shouldn't be just stuffed into a hodgepodge "Social and historical views" section. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't agree that the two books need their own section. They have articles of their own. As DiLorenzo seems to have "opposed" Lincoln, a subsection on that topic here may be a better editing solution. – S. Rich (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is intelligent criticism, not ad hominem. They didn't call him a poopyhead, they addressed his scholarship. You've still offered no explanation for removal. I'm going to give you one more chance to address this before I restore the cited criticism. At that point, if you remove it again, I will invoke Austrian-related sanctions on you for edit-warring. MilesMoney (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

@carolmooredc - There is no ad hominem in that text. FYI an example of ad hominem would be if they had said that DiLorenzo was incorrect because he's blond-haired, or left-handed, or has large feet. If you remove valid sourced content and then falsely state that you were justified in doing so because the deleted text was ad hominem your contributions will ultimately be repudiated by the WP community. Please exercise more care in your decisions here and in your explanations of them. SPECIFICO talk 21:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

WP Policy has been cited for the removal: Balance. We need to find material that provides a non-POV description of the debate. Or we should get consensus here for inclusion without balancing commentary. At the moment we are in the Discussion phase of BRD (which you quite properly opened), so let the discussion move on to a conclusion/consensus. – S. Rich (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

At best, that's an argument for adding some pro-Tom comments about the debate, which I would not oppose. Do you have any such comments? If not, then this is a balanced summary and this discussion is over. MilesMoney (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

There already is existing material in the book articles. More probably can be found. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

@srich I'm going to assume good faith on your part and conclude that you don't understand WP policy. We don't need to find a single perfect RS with no POV. We need to represent the RS views in the proportion to their incidence. Please don't misrepresent or misattribute policy in situations where it doesn't apply. That is one of the most disruptive things any editor can do here. SPECIFICO talk 21:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Carol, if you claim to have a reliable source which can counter the criticism, I'm open to its inclusion if you would do us the courtesy of pasting it here. You seem to understand that balance comes from letting everyone speak, not waiting for the most neutral person in the world to do so. MilesMoney (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Uhlmann and Krannawitter make their critical remarks and reference both the debate & DiLorenzo's The Real Lincoln. If anywhere, their comments can be added to the book article. At which point, in that article, balancing comments from other scholars can be added. But adding an isolated criticism doesn't work to promote NPOV. For more about this core content policy, see WP:YESPOV: "Editors ... should strive in good faith to provide complete information...." Declaring a discussion "over" after 55 minutes does not seem to be a step in the right direction. Rather, as rightly said, let everyone speak. – S. Rich (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

No, they were directly speaking of the debate, which happened to be about that book. There's absolutely no reason why their comments shouldn't be here as well as the book's article. In both cases, if there is any balancing support available from reliable sources, we should include it. If Carol comes up with some, I will endorse it. Until then, there is no reason to silence criticism. Balance means balance among RS, not absolutely neutrality. If you dislike this "one-sided" critical comment, your only legitimate recourse is to find something else to add.

At this point, you've run out of ideas, so this discussion appears to be over, with the consensus to restore the criticism as well add any balancing criticism that can be found. MilesMoney (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

There is no such consensus. As for new ideas, I have added the Uhlmann/Kannawitter link here as an EL and to The Real Lincoln. Note they say "In both his book and the debate..." – S. Rich (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Rich, I do understand that you oppose the consensus, but as you've been unable to offer any credible reasoning for your opposition, I don't see why it should matter. MilesMoney (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Now that the discussion has come to a natural end, I'm ready to restore that bit of sourced criticism. However, Carol said she had some counter-criticism, so I'd like to be able to include it if it exists. User:Carolmooredc, please provide some suggested text, including citations, so we can see if it fits. If you don't provide anything, then we have to assume that there is no counter-criticism available so this is as NPOV as our sources get. MilesMoney (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Saying there is consensus or a natural end does not make it so. I've provided policy rationale for keeping the material out of this BLP. And I've added citation links to the articles which have greater pertinence to the criticisms. Attempting to restore the material now, without more community input, won't help. It is more likely to lead to needless praise (that can be found on Mises.org type pages.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Merely linking to "WP:UNDUE" does not in any way suggest that including this reliably-sourced criticism is undue. At most, it shows that you think it's undue. Well, that's good to know, but I think it's not undue, so I guess that's why you're not participating in the consensus.

I've offered Carol a chance to balance this criticism against counter-criticism, out of good faith. If you really think the criticism is undue, the right thing for you to do is to take up the offer I gave her. Simply repeating your unexplained opposition to inclusion of this criticism is counterproductive. MilesMoney (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Srich, if the criticism by RS is UNDUE, that would mean there must be ample statements by RS which express the view to the contrary which will balance the critical remarks. I hope that you or caorlemooredc will identify such RS statements so that they can appear along with what has already been found. If on the other hand there are no RS statements to the contrary then I don't see how the RS scholarly criticism of this key work of TDiL can be called UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 17:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

There is praise, and I think Mises.org has some. But would you'all agree to include it? Strive to balance the article, as WP core content policy recommends. Doing so would be a worthwhile Ideological Turing Test. – S. Rich (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

You'll have to identify what you think is a Reliable Source. If it is not independent and/or its authors not qualified on the subject, it's not likely to pass muster. WP editors are clearly not entitled to remove the criticism merely because there are no other RS who disagree with such criticism. Please familiarize yourself with the applicable policy. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm repeating myself again: I would be happy to include praise from reliable sources. MilesMoney (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree, that would be great. Srich, please find RS independent praise or rebuttals of the RS criticisms? SPECIFICO talk 18:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

If "independent" was the criteria for evaluating Uhlmann and Krannawitter, then they'd haft to be excluded because of their Clairmont connection. As the real issue involves DiLorenzo's criticisms of Lincoln, the articles on his books are the best place for such criticisms. Editorially – that is, balance-wise and topic-wise – it is better to keep such battleground contentious material out of this article. – S. Rich (talk) 19:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

We can't use the LvMI as an RS for this because of their fringe views, so it's hardly parallel. MilesMoney (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

@Srich32977:, you're not saying that "independent" RS means that the source can't have any affiliations, are you? "Independent" means independent of the subject, i.e. independent of affiliations shared with DiLorenzo. If you are not clear about this, please have another look at the policy page. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

The policy WP:RS does not use the term "independent". It does list an essay, WP:IS. In any event, RS is but one step in the editorial evaluation. NPOV, UNDUE, BALANCE are additional factors. (Can you provide a quote from the Policy page that you feel applies? I'm wondering if "independent" RS policy were to exclude Mises.org, why wouldn't also exclude U&K. But, again, I can't find where "independent" in part of the policy.) – S. Rich (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Are you asking me to repeat my previous statement? DiLorenzo shares no affiliation with U and K or the Claremont Institute. He is independent of them. On the other hand, DiLorenzo is not independent of the Mises Institute. He is affiliated with vMI. Or are you asking a different question? At any rate, you keep changing the subject when your stated concern is addressed, so if you will please list all your concerns other editors can address them in their entirety. We don't want to be playing whack-a-mole, right? SPECIFICO talk 03:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Srich Before I leave for the day, just want to show you where the RS page would lead you to consider independence. Haven't you read this? At any rate, follow the yellow brick road here: [5]. Thanks. I need to catch a plane now, but please read up on RS, V and independence. SPECIFICO talk 15:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the link to the RS See also section, which has a link to WP:IS, which I already referred to above. Bon voyage. – S. Rich (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Per http://www.salarylist.com/company/Ludwig-Von-Mises-Institute-Salary.htm, DiLorenzo earns 60k a year for his work as a Mises Senior Fellow (for purposes of comparison, that's more than the median D1 college football coach makes). The definition of an employer is someone who pays another person/people to do things for her or him. That describes the relationship between Llewellyn and Lorenzo. Steeletrap (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh, please. I doubt that is in anyway a WP:RS since looks like just a commercial site to sell ads that throws stuff up there. Even if it was info is six years old and probably not accurate. There probably are a few actual employees that applies to but I doubt all of them. Here's a relevant one: http://www.salarylist.com/q/Southern-Poverty-Law-Center-Salary.htm Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Isn't that how all commercial websites fund themselves? Ever look at New York Times or Wall Street Journal websites? We don't yet have enough information to decide whether that site is RS, but we do have a clue to track down their source to see whether there is RS disclosure or reporting of the remuneration of Mises Institute fellows and teachers. It would be surprising if men the caliber of the Mises Institute Faculty would be donating their time and effort for free. We need to follow up on this lead, which could be a breakthrough toward easing your concern about stating that vMI compensates its affiliated scholars. I clicked the link you provided for the SPLC, but there was no salary data available for them. Did you find the salary data for a SPLC position? What was the job title. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

A fellow at LvMI is not an employee. The employer-employee relationship is not just that one person provides paid work for another. See for example the IRS's "Independent Contractor (Self-Employed) or Employee?"[6] An employee typically has a workplace provided by the employer, set hours, set holidays and sick days, notice period and severance pay, overtime, supervision and performance goals. TFD (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's probably correct, although we would need to find RS for any of these details. I have had employees work for me on staff with a W-2 who were 1 day a week or irregular hours but still considered an employee in that sense. If indeed the Fellows turn out to be contractors in the US tax sense, then vMI would be more like their client or sponsor. The appropriate statement would come from the RS description of the relationship. SPECIFICO talk 02:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

The onus is on you to show that they are employees. Your casual labor example is not helpful because it clearly meets the IRS criteria for employees. Incidentally, other countries define employees in a manner similar to the U.S. TFD (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not saying they're employees. I removed the text and rewrote it. I'm just saying we need to find RS which will tell us the facts concerning their compensation scheme and terms of affiliation. SPECIFICO talk 03:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've culled the Lacy Clay material. (Perhaps more culling is due.) As per my edit summary, Paul's remarks about Clay are off-topic – while perhaps intended to "defend" DiLorenzo, they do not pertain to DiLorenzo. DiLorenzo's own comments about Clay are primary and involve another BLP, of which DiLorenzo is not an expert. As the sub-committee confrontation was simply Congressional committee speech making, it does not deserve much mention in this BLP, let alone promotion to "key feature" as to DiLorenzo's life and career. – S. Rich (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'd be real interested to hear what your research tells you are the "key features" of Prof. DiLorenzo's career. Please share. SPECIFICO talk 05:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

One important editing concern is WP:IBX. – S. Rich (talk) 05:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'll take your evasion to mean that you don't have any answer to my question. Feel free to restart this thread when you're prepared to have a dialogue. SPECIFICO talk 05:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

There is no evasion. The thread I started is about including Clay material in the article. But the second attempt to include Clay in the infobox, like the attempt to put his image in the article, is a matter of properly editing and building the encyclopedia in accordance with Core Wikipedia Policies. Your question did not address that concern. Still, I attempted to provide some guidance. – S. Rich (talk) 06:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

You were asked what the key features of his career are. You have not answered. Are you going to? MilesMoney (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nope. The question has nothing to do with the BRD thread that I opened. I do welcome your comments as to how or why this single subcommittee constituency speech (so I assume) has relevancy to the DiLorenzo BLP. It has a certain interest in that we know one Congressperson made the remarks, but does this rise to the level of "key fact" about DiLorenzo's career? Hardly! Specifico may be interested in the overall aspects of DiLorenzo's career – I think he said his book was great – but asking the question did not help answer this specific editing concern. – S. Rich (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Following rewrites, I've removed the section UNDUE template. As it stands, the section describes Clay's criticisms, a brief descript of LOTS, the post-hearing news stories & op-ed piece. And it accurately reflects the fact that the news stories about the "connection" are based on the SPLC article. Note: we cannot use Clay as RS to say DiL has a connection to the League. – S. Rich (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

The "key feature" of DiLorenzo's career is probably his neoconfederate historiography. However "controversy" sections should be avoided, and controversial aspects should be included in the proper sections. One could say for example that he was active in the League which the SPLC considers a hate group and a congressman snubbed him for it. But the way it is written reads like a tabloid expose. TFD (talk) 06:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't disagree, but not only does Rich duck this question, he's been censoring the article to remove mentions of this neo-confed link. I'm fine with avoiding a controversy section and downplaying the tabloid aspect. MilesMoney (talk) 06:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

@The Four Deuces: The suggestion that DiL was "active in the League" is not well supported. Earlier we had the SPLC blog remark that he was an "activist", but not much more. If we leave in the committee snub, we open the door for DiLorenzo's reply, which has even less encyclopedic value. – S. Rich (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's fine to include Tom's reply. That's balance. MilesMoney (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction (University of Texas Press, 2009), calls DiLorenzo a "League of the South-affiliated scholar," (p. 37)[7] which corroborates the biographical info on the SPLC website that says he "teaches at the League of the South Institute for the Study of Southern Culture and History."[8]

However, reliable sources are sometimes wrong. DiLorenzo is open about his involvement with the Abbeville Institute, which was founded by Donald W. Livingston, who had helped found the League's education branch. (Neo-confederacy, p. 202 and SPLC[9]) It seems unlikely that DiLorenzo would have continued his connection with the League after joining the Abbeville Institute.

TFD (talk) 07:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why does it seem unlikely? MilesMoney (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

According to the links I provided, Livingstone broke with the South Institute for the Study of Southern History and Culture (LSI) when he set up the Abbeville Institute, taking scholars with him. However, The Southern Patriot, May-June 2009, p. 7, advertised a CSI conference with DiLorenzo and other scholars associated with the Abbeville Institute.[10] But the CSI appears not to have been active since then. Notice the SPLC article, "The Ideologues" was written in 2004, and accurate at the time. The Feb 9 2011 SPLC blog however may not have considered that the CSI had not held conferences since August 2009, which is 18 months, not 13 years. TFD (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok, then we need to be careful to qualify the material with "as of 2004" and so on. MilesMoney (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm trying to reach mediatransparency.org, which is referenced in footnote 87 (on page 48) of Neo-Confed: Critical Intro (U Texas Press book from chapter 1 by Euan Hague & Edward H. Sebesta). No success. Do I understand correctly that their dollar figures about DiL come from a SPLC reference? If this is so, it's better to cite SPLC directly rather than a book which refers to ("for full documentation, search ...") mediatransparency.org, which might cite SPLC. More specifically, what does the "full documentation" say? It would be helpful in the RS WP:CONTEXTMATTERS evaluation. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Mediatransparency.org was sold to Media Matters, and the website is no longer available (the information was retrieved from their website in Feb. 2007.) I doubt they got their info from SPLC, but do not know where they got it. However, DiLorenzo acknowledged financial support for his book on Lincoln (p. viii).[11] TFD (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. The three questions are 1. did DiL get money from Earhart? (Obviously, yes.) 2. what is his connection to LOTS? 3. so what? WRT #2, we have Heidi Beirich at SPLC saying he's an "activist", and we have DiL acknowledging he gave lectures, etc. I was hoping the mediatransparency.org link could provide more specific info. So we need to find some sort of NPOV term that describes the connection. (affiliated? associated? connected? involved? egad, each term can imply naughty or nice!) 3. Even when we get a NPOV description, what do we make of it? Do we say: "DiL is a naughty neo-confed, white-supremicist, bigot, etc. because he wrote articles, lectured, etc. for those bad people and organizations!" Or do we give a description of his major thesis, and elaborate on what impact it has had. I understand his thesis is: "States' rights, as envisioned and originally created by the Founding Fathers (like with appointment of Senators pre-17th Amendment), could serve to keep Big Government in check, and the Civil War served to diminish states' rights...." If this description is accurate, then I think the giving the description (refined) would be fine, and then we add material that says something like "DiLorenzo's arguments about keeping big government in check/supporting small government are popular with Ron Paul and X, Y, Z groups." – S. Rich (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for doing that, SRich. I won't have to add that to the WP:BLPN as an updated section now. But I am thinking of starting a general WP:BLPN discussion on "Are nasty news stories caused by partisan actions allowed to be the main indications that someone is notable and allowed to overwhelm and article."? (Though I guess providing a few examples from my last 7 years of editing would help.) Can you think of a shorter title? Actually, it might be better for WP:BLP policy page. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would say, after discussing his views on the South, that DiLorenzo taught southern history in lectures at the League of the South Institute for the Study of Southern Culture and History.[1] When asked about it in 2011, he said that he did not share their views and had not taught there for 13 years.[2] I would source the sentences to [1] the SPLC article about neoconfederate historians and [2] The Sun.

I think that is well sourced and avoids undue weight and OR. Readers of course are able to follow links if they want to explore the matter further. But there are not sufficient sources to say anything more. The LS was not a hate group when DiLorenzo claimed he lectured to them. The level of his involvement may not be sufficient for more than passing mention. The grant money probably is unimportant too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 00:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, TFD, your comments are greatly appreciated. Why don't you make the changes suggested.

Do I understand correctly – the LS evolved in its' "hate group" nature over the years? If so, DiL's involvement was quite innocent back then. And with that in mind, how do we avoid the tar & feather implication of saying there was a connection? (Food for thought – and I'm also going to think about how to incorporate DiL's anti-big gov thesis into the article.) In the meantime, I'm going to remove the NPOV template. I think it has served its purpose. – S. Rich (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

You do not understand correctly. It was neo-confed all along, which is hardly innocent. It just hadn't been recognized for crossing the line into being a hate group yet. MilesMoney (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

SRich: At this diff, last paragraph, I added Thomas Woods story of group's creation. Evidently after 2000 Thomas Hill and others started getting really ...bad... (See relevant article and linked SPLC report.) I say bad because someone just got blocked for making the snotty comment "Sorry, can't hear you, the right-wing doesn't play very well where science and rational thinking are needed."

MilesMoney: I don't believe "Neo-confederate" is a phrase they use to describe themselves and according to the relevant article many consider it a pejorative, which is why we need a source when we use the term. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

The problem with your analysis is that DiLorenzo wrote an article praising the League's views on social and economic issues in 2005, several years after it became "bad" and a "hate group" for the blatantly (rather than concealed) racist platform it advanced. That article has been "cleansed" from his page, but I would hope someone would re-add it, as it is a good WP:Aboutself description of DiLo. Steeletrap (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sometimes people don't believe what they hear from some advocacy groups, don't check it out themselves, and it takes a mainstream publication or a friend cluing them before they finally get it. It's not wikipedia's job to assume the worst and try to synthesize something editors assume is true. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK, someone just added three paragraphs about his views from an autobiographical essay which I thought was too much, but more concerned with it being mischaracterized section wise. Yet SRich removed my (admittedly rather long) two paragraphs on his views here. I don't have a problem with short material like this, both mine and the current. Though I do think people should look harder for secondary material or at least interviews. So many articles, so little time! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

The material falls under WP:Aboutself, and is thereore not subject to typical primary source strictures. Steeletrap (talk) 05:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

In both cases the issue is what is and is not WP:Undue. Also let's not forget primary source issues should be made notable and introduced by secondary sources and used more for important factoids or as replies to allegations, not as cherry picked things that make the person look bad. Unfortunately, one can forget that when others are loading up an article with primary sourced material. Well, we'll deal with all these newest issues after the holiday, should anyone take a day off. :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 06:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

As mentioned in my edit summary, restoring the Primary Source template, this does not involve UNDUE or controversy. The template simply invites other interested editors to contribute non-primary information about DiLorenzo's biographical info. Things like a CV from his university webpage. These templates are indexed so that interested editors can scan them and chip in. Primary sources are acceptable, but we'd really like more sourcing. Please leave the template as is so that other editors can catch sight and contribute. – S. Rich (talk) 03:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I never have really used indexed pages since usually too busy with other stuff, so forgot about that function. In any case I did do some research on DiLorenzo and found lots of good stuff. Unfortunately this weekend fell behind... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Given WP:ABOUTSELF, there is no problem with primary sources here, so no need to replace them. The tag is just shaming. MilesMoney (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

There is no dispute that this source can be used, provided we do so in a NPOV manner. But I'm afraid you don't understand the purpose of such templates -- they are an invitation to other editors to come on in and improve the article. There is no shame whatsoever. (See: WP:TAGGING.) – S. Rich (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC) 03:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Actually, as was about to turn off the computer I realized that since this is a self-published DiLorenzo piece that hasn't been edited for fact, we can't just go repeating his anecdotes about people who could be identified through a bit of sleuthing. WP:BLP is even more stringent: Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). This includes alleged [examples redacted for BLP reasons] and identifiable others. Thus have edited it down. Less identifiable groups of individuals generally described as politicians or welfare recipients can, of course, be mentioned. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm really confused by the last edit by Carolmoore and Srich. Carol uses the term "libel" in a sense that I've never seen the term used before (i.e. implying that one can "libel" a totally unidentifiable, practically hypothetical person), and Rich claims both that LRC is a "self-published source" and that DiLorenzo is referring to a "third party" in discussing the mystery mugger. )DiLorenzo also says that he studied under Tullock; is this illicit information about a third party in violation of WP:SPS?).

All that said, the police stuff isn't hugely important to the article, and I don't have a strong preference for including this material. I just am stunned by the sort of rationales that are being used to criticize my edits. Steeletrap (talk) 06:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh, they're completely wrong on policy, and this isn't a new error for either of them. As I mentioned on ANI, they have a track record of abusing WP:BLP to censor articles. This is a typical example. MilesMoney (talk) 06:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC

@Steeletrap: Don't be too stunned. We want you to read and edit without passing out. While Carol mentioned libel, that is not the issue. (I think she used the term in an abundance of BLP caution.) SPS says we can't use stuff that refers to 3rd parties, positive or negative. It must be limited to aboutself. As TDiL is talking about third parties, in addition to himself, I think it's best to leave it out. What relevance does his experience with the police, who were involved with a case involving another person, have to do with TDiL? Not much. But it is SPS because it is DiLorenzo's writing on LR.com, and he's going beyond his area of expertise. – S. Rich (talk) 06:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)16:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for ignoring my response, but I'm going to point out your error again, anyhow. WP:SPS says:

Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

Now, let's say a self-published source said, "I once met a guy who ate pie". Is that a violation? No, because there is no living person identified. If it said, "Barack Obama ate pie", that would be a violation.

In this article, nobody is identified, and for all we know, all of these people are imaginary, so you are mistaken about that policy applying. MilesMoney (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I use self-published sources for basic info. Extensive use however raises POV and SYN problems. If you write what someone believes, then you need to ensure that you have prepared a summary of their beliefs representing each one in proportion to its significance. Compare with any essay question in college: Explain Locke's philosophy. If you write about his pro-slavery views but ignore his anti-slavery views, or if you include his epistemology but exclude his political philosophy then you get poor marks. Because your answer must summarize what informed sources say is important, not what you happen to find interesting. TFD (talk) 09:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your concerns seem unrelated to those of Rich and Carol, as you're not claiming it's a violation of WP:BLP or possible libel. For that matter, your concerns don't seem particularly related to the current issue, since we're not trying to use a first-person source to give a full view of Tom's beliefs, just his own story about how he came to believe what he does. So long as it's properly attributed, it's unproblematic.

Like Steele, I don't think this material is hugely important to the quality of the article. I do think the article is somewhat better with it than otherwise, though. The bigger issue is that the stated reason for removing the material doesn't make any sense, and that this is part of a larger pattern in which material is removed on a faulty basis. MilesMoney (talk) 10:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

1. Editors seem to forget that removal of questionable material until it's thoroughly discussed (including by bringing in outside editors) already was discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive189#Temporary_removal_of_BLP_violating_material and I'd have added this example if it had not been archived. I see SRich has removed it again.
2. Why not give it another day to see if editors who want to put in questable material can get the point and/or noninvolved editors come in to settle the dispute; then we can bring it to WP:BLP.
3. I referred to negative material about individuals who could be easily identified. I'm sure any halfway competent internet sleuth, private eye or govt investigator easily could identify these individuals if they chose. In fact I myself too clearly identified them and have redacted those descriptions.
4. BLP is even stricter saying any mention is wrong. IMHO Neutral material about others that easily can be verified is not as much of a problem, preferable if WP:RS source it, but feel free to remove Tullock until it is sourced independently.
5. I doubt LewRockwell.com verified the factuality of this personal memoir to ensure it was not inadvertent libel defamation, misidentifying individuals or their words or actions through a faulty memory of events 40 years previously.

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Carol, you continue to misunderstand the definition of "libel." Please consult any resources available to you (perhaps a lexicographer with whom you are friendly) in order to correct this misunderstanding. Steeletrap (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

First, I see I did use the word libel in the edit summary and again in this thread about DiLorenzo's comments sloppily after someone else did. Libel redirects here to Defamation more typically used on Wikipedia anyway, except evidently in BLP policy. So complain to WP:BLP about the use of libel.

The point is that DiLorenzo may convey personal and/or inaccurate information that harms people who easily can be identified. Inadvertent defamation. Thus the strict BLP policy. A guy about to reach pension age might get fired because his small town boss is reminded he was [details removed ] 40 years ago and thus lose his pension? DiLorenzo may know the status of these people and their feelings about being discussed and possible implications for their lives, and thus be comfortable with it. But we as editors do not and thus must be conservative. There is nothing so important in there it needs to be in there. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

The problem with your argument is that these people cannot be easily identified. In fact, there's no way to even verify that they're real. You are deeply mistaken about policy. MilesMoney (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

At this diff Steeletrap restored a section they added earlier today without any discussion of my revert. This is edit warring in an obviously contentious topic. Please revert your change until we get more views on this. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 06:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

BRD is the norm, but your edit here is blatantly incorrect. The section is about how DiLorenzo came to believe what he does (e.g. his friend having to go to Canada to avoid the Vietnam war, police inefficiency, studying under TUllock at VT, meeting Murray Rothbard, and so forth). It is not about his social/political views, but how he came to them. Steeletrap (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Also, how is this material "contentious"? It falls under WP:Aboutself, and is also just plain interesting. It covers both the instinctual (sports), anecdotal (seeing what he perceived to be police misconduct), and academic (studying under Tullock and reading Rothbard) development of his views. Is it the mention of athletics that you find controversial? (There is a reason the man is wearing a whistle.) Steeletrap (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's contentious because it's cherry picked comments from a primary source. Was there any attempt to find secondary sources? Or look through the ones we have now that only have been used for their negative info? Yes, I'd love it to do it myself but my Wikipedia budgeted time is taken up making long lists of BLP problems that need to be addressed.

It's against Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle because it avoids any discussion or WP:Consensus. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

The review by Prof. Masugi was removed with an edit summary which appears to have called it ad hominem. The statements were not ad hominem and so I am reverting this removal of validly sourced content which presents the opinion of a this conservative mainstream scholar. There is, of course, more detailed discussion in the review. Such material could be added if others think it would further elucidate Prof. Masugi's view. I've also fixed some awkward language concerning the 2007 book and removed the publisher information which belongs in the book's article or the footnote, not in text. SPECIFICO talk 15:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC) I am again away today, traveling the rest of the way up to Wasilla for Thanskgiving, but at the end of the "books" section the washington post review is mentioned with an uninformative and cryptic summary. The review has plenty of material which is worth using in the article see here for the review. Perhaps some editor(s) can have a look. SPECIFICO talk 15:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

This diff is of the lastest series of edits by Steeletrap and SPECIFICO to the books section:

• Why cleanse the factoid that George Mason Univeristy economist Walter E. Williams has having written the foreward? It does give DiLorenzo some credibility. I didn't even include any quotes like the book article does.
• I think is a WP:OR/POV misstatement of [added later: what Gordon actually writes] to replace "He writes that the south was hurt by these policies and its right to secede was the majority opinion of the day." with "He attributes the South's secession to Lincoln's economic policies rather than a desire to preserve slavery. "
• You all removed Gamble's praise for the book "Professor Richard M. Gamble noted that DiLorenzo’s book "manages to raise fresh and morally probing questions" and added a lot more of his criticism! See WP:BLP#Balance.
• You added purely adhominen comments: Masugi called DiLorenzo's work "shabby" and stated that DiLorenzo's treatment of Lincoln was "feckless" and that the book is "truly awful" It's not intelligent criticism. Not encyclopedic. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Gamble did not praise the book, he condemned it while praising its subject matter. Please read the actual review, as it is scathing in its criticism of the book. I have no objection to adding the Williams material. However, the Masugi stuff (which I did not add) is not ad hominem; if I criticize an edit for being "sloppy" or even "inept", that's logially distinct from calling a person sloppy or inept.

I think instead of filing these complaints, you should look to see if there is a positive RS review (not from a co-worker) of DiLorenzo's book. If such reviews are out there, we'd need to add them for balance; but if they're not, we have to accurately represent what RS say about the book. Steeletrap (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Gambles review statement DiLorenzo "manages to raise fresh and morally probing questions" - which was removed - is praise!

As for adding new info, first one has to deal with the good material already removed, not to mention the bad material entered. By then it's three hours of the day gone and my Wiki-daily-budgeted-time has been busted again. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Carol, if someone were to tell you that, while you "raise fresh and probing issues", that your editing as a whole is a "travesty" comprised of a "labyrinth" of factual and policy errors, and richly deserves ridicule, would you consider this comment to be praiseful? Everything has to be read in context. Steeletrap (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

@Carolmooredc:: You seem not to know the meaning of ad hominem. Referring to my edit, you addressed me above in this thread, at (19:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)): <<You added purely adhominen comments: Masugi called DiLorenzo's work "shabby" and stated that DiLorenzo's treatment of Lincoln was "feckless" and that the book is "truly awful".>> Carolmooredc, those are not what is meant by the term ad hominem. Please consult whatever resources are available to you, WP or others, and check your understanding of ad hominem. This is a big problem for WP, because if you use your misunderstanding of ad hominem to justify personal attacks and disparagement of the good faith of other editors, it is disruptive and such behavior has no place in WP. Please refresh your understanding of that term before using it again. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 04:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)19:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Masugi presents the statements in context of a longer paragraph. Editors throwing them out as a string of insults with no context is de facto an ad hominem attack. It's just a string of insults, not a serious analysis. (And even when a source sling strings of insults, that is no reason for Wikipedians to do it, anyway.) More over, see Ad_hominen#Guilt_by_association. Now that's an ad hominem attack I have complained about in a bunch of articles, isn't it??

Meanwhile, no one seems to contest my points on Williams, synth on Gordon, removal of Gamble comments. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Masugi is one of the foremost scholars in this particular subject matter, and his review of the book was scathingly negative. If you can find other short excerpts from the Masugi review which you think do a better job of summarizing Masugi's reaction, why not propose them for inclusion in the article? If we use a longer excerpt or paraphrase Masugi at length her, some editors might find the extensive coverage of his review excessive. After all, with a brief mention and the citation, interested readers can locate the full review. Could you please explain your reference to ad hominem in your comment above and how it applies here? Are you stating that Masugi's review implies "guilt by association"? With whom? I am not following you but will read your explanation and consider. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

What you say about Masugi is irrelevant to the issue of throwing out a string of attack words with no context. To say Masugi considered the book one or maybe two of the above negative attributes in context, followed by his main thesis is fine. To throw out all three in a row is just a BLP attack. Feels like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Do I need to go to WP:BLPN with that (and a laundry list of other problems) for you to understand. Will give it til next week. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Instead of opening another Noticeboard thread, please propose alternative text which you would prefer to insert in the article. SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Since there are a lot of issues that can be addressed through better sourcing, I am actually doing some research today. For example the WashPost and the Pub Weekly seem to have some good info that should be lead info, instead of Gordon. I'm sure those can be found on the other books and other places. However, I don't want to get too piecemeal, so shall give it another day. Meanwhile if there's no defense of no one seems to contest my points on Williams, synth on Gordon, removal of Gamble yes-they-are-praise comments. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Since you've already done the reading on the Masugi review, please propose your alternative text so that we can resolve that part of your concern before moving on. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

By the way, in just 6 minutes of searching found a good over all view of DiLorenzo's career on a not-particulary RS site, but have already sourced most important factoids to RS. Helps if these guys would post their full curriculum vitae someplace for ease of research. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

See Talk:Thomas_Woods#Criticism_and_controversy started by another editor regarding a similar "League of the South" section in the Woods' article. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I can see that there was a discussion last week about the Books section but it seemed to deterioratye very quickly. From the early sparring, it looks like Carolmooredc favoured a large section while SRich did not. In this instance, Carolmoore is wrong: the two books mentioned both have their own articles and it is not common practice to have such extensive commentary elsewhere (ie: here) in such circumstances. The section should simply list his notable publications, linked as appropriate and with an ISBN that acts as verification. No need for book reviews to be cited etc. - Sitush (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I see two sections above on books but I think where I ended up at end was that we need better sourcing for his "Life and works" section and that books could be integrated into life and work with one paragraph each; though I may have not said the latter. (And there are the unresolved issues about removal of praise and too much criticism.) Hopefully soon I can get back to my researching.

Any thoughts on Talk:Thomas_DiLorenzo#Removal_of_BLP_questionable_material whether DiLorenzo's personal memoir on LewRockwell.com can be used to convey negative information about individuals who could be easily identifiable - especially in their home towns, now that I think of it - given the info he provides? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

On the other hand as I am right now sourcing info on his academic career to add, I am finding a lot more on his books, especially those two. Most of it should go into the articles themselves, of course. Since many articles have books sections with paragraphs about books that do have articles (as well as others with out them), how much info on how many books do you think should be in such a section to qualify it for a "Books" section? Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

At this diff removal of info with edit summary "standard reading for economists". Re reading, I actually just followed the previous editors lead, but now looking more closely at the source he said he was introduced to Austrian economics in his first semester in graduate school, which really is all that might need noting. However, the removing editor did not give an explanation for removing While completing his doctorate at Virginia Tech, he studied under Gordon Tullock and James Buchanan. Later he met Murray Rothbard and was influenced by Rothbard’s use of a number of academic disciplines in his “relentless pursuit of truth”. both ref'd by his memoir. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 06:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Economics grad students at VT all study under Tullock and Buchanan, so I don't see what's notable about it. Do we have any reliable sources which suggest notability? As for the Rothbard mention, it was a poor fit to begin with and now there doesn't seem to be any way to integrate it with this section. If you think it's important -- and I don't -- then find someplace else to put it. MilesMoney (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

As I get more relevant info from other sources I'll figure out the best place for influences. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

At this Bold edit [12] (which lacked an edit summary) "examined" was changed to "defended". I Reverted back to "examined" and modified the description a bit. Justification was the usage of a neutral term to say what DiLorenzo did. At this stage (without Discussion) we see "defended" restored. Well, while DiLorenzo is "defending" the League, he is doing so in the context of what he calls Neoconservative criticisms of the League. In any event, this last sentence of the section, whether it uses "defended the League" or "examined criticism of the League", is unacceptable SYNTH. The section is titled "Involvement". Thus, the 2005 LewRockwell.com piece serves to imply that DiLorenzo is involved with the League because he wrote an article about neocon criticisms of the League. (The piece does not mention any involvement with the League.) With this in mind, the last sentence should be discarded. – S. Rich (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Per WP:BLP we use the most neutral language, not the most charged language, especially in interpreting primary sources. Please just revert back to most neutral language per Wikipedia:BLP#Tone and take the offenders to WP:BLPN were I'll be happy to ask an Admin to sanction the offender(s) under WP:AEGS. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

"Neutral language" is not the basic issue. The basic problem is the inclusion of the 2005 article to imply an "involvement" of DiLorenzo with the League. Once this issue is resolved, the next issue is the neutrality of the language. – S. Rich (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK, you should say so. First time I remember hearing that argument in all these past (deja vu) discussions: Talk:Thomas_DiLorenzo#Undue_section; Talk:Thomas_DiLorenzo#List_of_BLP_problems_in_article; Talk:Thomas_DiLorenzo#Lacy_Clay_sub-committee_hearing_comments; Talk:Thomas_DiLorenzo#Criticism_and_controversy.

Please note the last section addresses the title issue generally. The material just should be integrated chronologically as it happened without a section header characterizing it. Or at most it should be DiLorenzo and League of the South and then presented in chrono order. Once against editors have presented material as argumentative synthesis instead of neutral biographical chronology. So I'll put back your synth tag. Though {{Synthesis|date=March 2014}} or {{Criticism section|date=March 2014}} also could be applied. (See the latter was removed after editors refused to discuss the issue at this and another article, against policy.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Your statement is a bit confusing. The links may refer to past discussions, but I cannot discern how they help here. But I do think the issue has been narrowed. E.g., if we simply title the section "DiL & LoftheS" (avoiding the problematic "involvement" heading) and put the material in order (as you suggest), we can avoid the SYNTH problem. – S. Rich (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Go for it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Only 26 hours of discussion so far. Let's see what others have to say. – S. Rich (talk) 05:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I propose the following as a re-write for the section:

==DiLorenzo and the League of the South==

In a 2005 LewRockwell.com article, DiLorenzo defended the League of the South from criticisms by neoconservatives and concluded that the League "advocates peace and prosperity in the tradition of a George Washington or a Thomas Jefferson".^[1]

In 2011, DiLorenzo testified before the House Financial Services Committee at the request of former U.S. Congressman Ron Paul; during the hearing, Congressman Lacy Clay criticized DiLorenzo for his associations with the League, which Clay described as a "neo-Confederate group".^[2] In Reuters and Baltimore Sun articles about the hearing, a Southern Poverty Law Center story about DiLorenzo's connection with the League was mentioned.^[3][4] Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank wrote about Clay's remarks and he said the League of the South was listing DiLorenzo on its Web site as an 'affiliated scholar' as recently as 2008.^[5][6]

DiLorenzo denied any affiliation with the group, telling a Baltimore Sun reporter that "I don't endorse what they say and do any more than I endorse what Congress says and does because I spoke at [the] hearing...." An investigation as to whether DiLorenzo had ties to the League was subsequently conducted by Loyola University.^{[7][needs update]} In a later LewRockwell.com column, DiLorenzo described his association with the League as limited to "a few lectures on the economics of the Civil War" he gave to the League of the South Institute about thirteen years ago.^[8]

I'd implement but for the proposed temporary IBAN/TBAN being discussed at an ArbCom page. – S. Rich (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... he has produced multiple notable books (albeit revisionist), articles, and has positions of importance with think tanks, also, notable controversy with Ron Paul/Lacy Clay committee hearing. -- – S. Rich (talk) 04:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

As the CSD has been removed by another editor, this point is now resolved/moot. – S. Rich (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thomas DiLorenzo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517160026/http://www.claremont.org/writings/crb/Spring2002/krannawitter.html to http://www.claremont.org/writings/crb/Spring2002/krannawitter.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply